 |
| New York City metro area |
The most segregated are:
- Milwaukee
- New York
- Chicago
- Detroit
- Cleveland
- Buffalo
- St. Louis
- Cincinnati
- Philadelphia
- Los Angeles
I've lived in three of these cities, and can't say the results are too surprising. Milwaukee had a nice swath of white supremacists, but that alone obviously doesn't tell the story. (For instance, the Cleveland expert feels Cleveland's split demographic has more to do with people leaving Cleveland, period, than specifically leaving communities blacks are moving to.) One point that I think is interesting is that the cities which are heavily segregated all voted heavily for President Obama in the last election - and not just the urban sections of mostly minorities, but the suburban sections of whites as well. I recall having this discussion with people before, but New York City for example for all its supposed diversity simply isn't truly diverse at all - everyone lives in a community with "their people", not with one another.
I wonder if this segregation impacts how people approach government's intervention into various aspects of their lives. In integrated cities, people know one another and view each other as individuals, and feel that they all already have equal opportunities to succeed in life - it doesn't matter if you're black or white, Latino or Asian, it's about what you put into it (coupled with a fair amount of luck). In segregated cities, people view each other far more in a "group" context, and think that government intervention is the key to equal opportunity (or outcomes, anyway). Ironically, it is specifically those areas which pursue interventionist policies that end up segregating themselves further as those policies often keep people exactly where they are, whereas without such policies people are more likely to move and seek out better opportunities rather than stay to pick up various benefits.
The conclusions about politics you jump to are ridiculous because you aren't even thinking about rural vs. urban or income disparities.
ReplyDeleteThink about it. In "integrated cities" minorities would have to have approximately the same income as whites, since they live in the same neighborhoods. So, yes, people living there might "feel that they all already have equal opportunities to succeed in life" and they might be right for that city but they would have a distorted view of the country, which has huge income disparities between races.
People living in the more segregated cities may have a more correct view of the inequalities that exist.
Other way around. Most places started segregated; those which pursued certain liberal agendas became even more so, while those which encouraged individualism allowed and encouraged success and became more integrated.
ReplyDeletePersonally I have always felt that policies which specifically send money to shore up urban areas often seem like transparent ways of saying "here's some money so you can stay there and not come here".
Since 1988, we've lived in integrated suburban-type neighborhoods in Metro Detroit, Houston, and Indianapolis.
ReplyDeleteI would guess that all three neighborhoods voted mostly for Obama. It's probably a function of the percent there of African Americans and other registered Democrats ---Duh!
Other way around. Most places started segregated; those which pursued certain liberal agendas became even more so, while those which encouraged individualism allowed and encouraged success and became more integrated.
ReplyDeleteDo you have any evidence that this is the case? Or even an explanation of how it might work?
Personally I have always felt that policies which specifically send money to shore up urban areas often seem like transparent ways of saying "here's some money so you can stay there and not come here".
You shouldn't trust your "feelings" when they're based on an egregiously offensive mischaracterization of your political opponents' motivations.
Do you have any evidence that this is the case? Or even an explanation of how it might work?
ReplyDeleteMost places started segregated is historical data. The cities which are most liberal (and I believe if you'd check are internally liberal as well) are the ones with the highest rates of segregation even today, so I think the statistics are showing it. They are the most likely to have urban redevelopment projects and the like - by shoving money into urban areas to keep them merely afloat or a bit better, it makes it a better proposition for people to remain there than risk exiting for other opportunities. In other cities, however, people are not given subsidies to remain where they are, so they choose opportunities based on what seems best. It's a simple economic calculation: Given two choices, if both are the same starting point, then the higher potential upside will win. But if one starting point is higher (through subsidies) it's far harder to risk that starting point for the potential upside.
You shouldn't trust your "feelings" when they're based on an egregiously offensive mischaracterization of your political opponents' motivations.
I'm not saying all or even a majority, but it certainly seems that way (even if unconscious) - when people say we need to give money to the black community or the Latino community, it's for them to remain such a community. By implication that means they aren't coming to the white one.
Essentially it's the same basic argument against most subsidies or certain taxes - ultimately, the short-term benefit is far outweighed by the long-term cost. Here, the data is even better: It shows that even the short-term benefits are erased over the long-term since it holds back the people it is meant to assist.
ReplyDeleteHere, the data is even better: It shows that even the short-term benefits are erased over the long-term since it holds back the people it is meant to assist.
ReplyDeleteSee now there would be an interesting post. Data, you say? Not just op-eds from the WSJ or pieces from "think-tank" writers? Are you going to cherry-pick the worse offenders and leave out the programs that help?
I have no problem with supporting programs that truly help if their cost is justified.
ReplyDeleteAnd I have no problem cutting programs that don't help whose cost is not justified. :-)
ReplyDeleteI know very little about statistics, but I thought I would make a few points:
ReplyDeleteFirst, the implication that these cities Democratic sensibilities are what causes the segregation seems misguided. Yes, these cities voted for Obama, but most large cities voted overwhelmingly Democratic. That is where Democrats live. Not on this list are places like Boston, San Francisco and Seattle, which are famously liberal, and cities in the bastions of Red America, like Atlanta, Memphis, Dallas, Miami and Omaha.
Second, voting for Obama seems a crude metric for liberal-ness. There are places where Democrats perform well in Democratic elections because of union affinity, that are not very liberal, like in the Rust Belt and there are places where they succeed because those places are liberal (San Fran and the pacific Northwest), and places that vote for ethnic or historical reasons, and places like Montana, and places with everything, like New York. Additionally, Obama in particular got a boost from minority communities that don't always vote, so that can skew things.
Third, and here I really betray my ignorance of statistics, I am unclear how an all white city, or a city with an overwhelmingly white population, would appear on these graphs. For instance, Mississippi is a famously segregated state, where the majority of the state's black population (and Democratic vote) reside in a belt in the middle of the state, and the whites on the periphery, as it were. I think for a city to show up in these rankings, it would have to have large white and black populations. Big cities or rural areas in conservative parts of the country that are overwhelmingly populated by only one ethnic group, would not show up as being segregated, because there are no blacks in the area, or vice versa.
A corollary of this is not that people self-segregate out of any political belief, necessarily, but because they like to live with their own. If you live in Wyoming, self-segregation is unnecessary, because everyone is white. If you are a Dominican immigrant who comes to NYC, and doesn't speak English, there is a good chance you'll rely on your immigrant community in Washington Heights.
Fourth, I would refrain from trying to find a common cause that explains the demographics and land use of American cities. One thing that many people do not understand, is how unique every American city can be, and how much influence in property use governments from a hundred years ago can have. And sometimes, those governments of yore were acting purposely racist, such as Robert Moses refusing to build subways to Staten Island to keep minorities who relied on public transportation out of the island, and sometimes to pay back a favor to an oil or railroad baron by forbidding residential uses in certain districts. These factors can vary widely based on when the city was founded, how it was founded, where it was founded, and who controlled the city when it was, who controls it now, how the levers of power are operated, and what role the respective state and county governments played in all this.
Can someone explain these maps?
ReplyDeleteHow come areas that are 50% or less are a specific color?
Shouldn't the light colored areas, actually be a mixture of colors? Overall I think the maps are not helpful, and shouldn't be the basis for anything.